I'm Not Ready for the Gulch
Posted by CircuitGuy 11 years, 5 months ago to Philosophy
Through much of AS, Dagny opposes the destroyer. She isn't ready to give up on American society yet. It makes sense because she built a segment of American society. She's pained to see it looted away and then decay in mismanagement by the looters.
It doesn't seem believable to me how quickly some of the producers seem to give up in the face of gov't meddling. You'd think they'd use the same acumen with which they deal with investors, customers, employees, and vendors, to explain to the politicians and the people they supposedly represent that their policies were tantamount to looting.
Eventually all the main characters give up on society in favor of the Gulch. It almost reads like the flood myth which crops up all around the world: People become decadent. The world is destroyed except for a few righteous people. This paves the way for a new and better world.
Some of the flood myth stories are probably related, but I also suspect that humans are adapted to be drawn to stories of an apocalypse cleansing away the evils of the world.
I am where Dagny is in the middle of the book (except I'm not a business genius), not even close to ready to give up. Like so many important causes, people tend to promote it by saying things are going to the devil. You don't hear arguments like “Domestic violence is way down thanks to the hard work of many people. Until it's zero, though, we still need help reducing it further.” Instead they tend to find some statistics that make it feel like domestic violence is an epidemic.
Liberty is more fundamental than something like domestic violence, but it plays out the same way. If you say things are good and need to get better, people see that as denying the issue.
The Gulch website members are like the Gulch members in the book. At one point they were focused on making things happen in the world-- selling management or investors on risky projects with huge potential, getting people on the same page, serving clients, building their “brand” as it were. They're tired of fighting to make projects work and fighting politics at the same time. Website members are probably still out there making stuff happen, but they long for a Gulch where they can do it without all the baloney.
“Why don't people talk about all the cool stuff they're working on instead of how bad the legal / regulatory environment is?” I wonder. The answer is obvious: This website is called the “Gulch”, not “Producers saving the looters' world.”
I love the idea of a Gulch. I love Seasteads and startup incubators on ships. There is loads of science fiction about people moving to space and breaking away as the US did. I love Thomas Jefferson's hope that America would have people in different places experimenting with vastly different rule systems. If the destroyer came for my wife (her business is succeeding at the moment) and our family, however, there's is NO WAY we'd go to the Gulch. We would never leave all our friends and family and everything we've built here. Escaping on plane out of Truax and watching the Capitol dome and surrounding Isthmus go dark like Dagny is a nightmare, not something I could see anything good in.
I plan to stop using this website in a few days. People here think I'm at best a Pollyanna and at worst someone whose tiny lobbying efforts (e.g. keeping HSAs allowed under PPACA) paradoxically help the looters by postponing the apocalypse. This is a pivotal time, an automation revolution I think, and we need all producers making defending liberty a primary avocation. I'm far from quitting. The Gulch is not for me.
It doesn't seem believable to me how quickly some of the producers seem to give up in the face of gov't meddling. You'd think they'd use the same acumen with which they deal with investors, customers, employees, and vendors, to explain to the politicians and the people they supposedly represent that their policies were tantamount to looting.
Eventually all the main characters give up on society in favor of the Gulch. It almost reads like the flood myth which crops up all around the world: People become decadent. The world is destroyed except for a few righteous people. This paves the way for a new and better world.
Some of the flood myth stories are probably related, but I also suspect that humans are adapted to be drawn to stories of an apocalypse cleansing away the evils of the world.
I am where Dagny is in the middle of the book (except I'm not a business genius), not even close to ready to give up. Like so many important causes, people tend to promote it by saying things are going to the devil. You don't hear arguments like “Domestic violence is way down thanks to the hard work of many people. Until it's zero, though, we still need help reducing it further.” Instead they tend to find some statistics that make it feel like domestic violence is an epidemic.
Liberty is more fundamental than something like domestic violence, but it plays out the same way. If you say things are good and need to get better, people see that as denying the issue.
The Gulch website members are like the Gulch members in the book. At one point they were focused on making things happen in the world-- selling management or investors on risky projects with huge potential, getting people on the same page, serving clients, building their “brand” as it were. They're tired of fighting to make projects work and fighting politics at the same time. Website members are probably still out there making stuff happen, but they long for a Gulch where they can do it without all the baloney.
“Why don't people talk about all the cool stuff they're working on instead of how bad the legal / regulatory environment is?” I wonder. The answer is obvious: This website is called the “Gulch”, not “Producers saving the looters' world.”
I love the idea of a Gulch. I love Seasteads and startup incubators on ships. There is loads of science fiction about people moving to space and breaking away as the US did. I love Thomas Jefferson's hope that America would have people in different places experimenting with vastly different rule systems. If the destroyer came for my wife (her business is succeeding at the moment) and our family, however, there's is NO WAY we'd go to the Gulch. We would never leave all our friends and family and everything we've built here. Escaping on plane out of Truax and watching the Capitol dome and surrounding Isthmus go dark like Dagny is a nightmare, not something I could see anything good in.
I plan to stop using this website in a few days. People here think I'm at best a Pollyanna and at worst someone whose tiny lobbying efforts (e.g. keeping HSAs allowed under PPACA) paradoxically help the looters by postponing the apocalypse. This is a pivotal time, an automation revolution I think, and we need all producers making defending liberty a primary avocation. I'm far from quitting. The Gulch is not for me.
You show a misunderstanding about at least one Gulch producer. You wrote "The Gulch website members are like the Gulch members in the book. At one point they were focused on making things happen in the world.....They're tired of fighting"
I am not tired of fighting. I am fighting in a different way than you imagine, and it is a harder fight than you CAN imagine.Go back to AS, and read, really READ the scene in which Frisco and Rearden meet in Dagny's apartment. Frisco is seen to be dedicating whatever he is feeling and thinking to another presence in the room - Galt, of course.
Read that scene and then accuse me of just being "tired of fighting". <spits at your feet and WALKS.>
I can only surmise that's because you lied and did NOT look at the links, or you lacked the capacity to understand them. I invite everyone here to review the research for themselves and (whether they agree with the conclusions or not) say quite clearly whether the research supports my statements that women are the cause of debt in America.
Imagine that. A talking dog.
It would be interesting to know what exactly I should apply logic to? From your post, I have no idea what exactly you are referring to.
A little clarity would help
Fred
If you learn anything from Rand, learn how best to live your own life.
Here's the failed Minerva expedition: http://micronations.wikia.com/wiki/Repub...
Here's more: http://isismagazine.org.uk/2012/05/top-5...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_Fe...
I'm not in the business of quoting prices on bottles of water, hating on customers as they try to pick out the right burrito or chasing down pickle thieves. If I'd said, $6/hour, would it have been something you recognized?
Perhaps it's time you considered that your imagination it simply too limited to conceive of the sorts of jobs I might do and let it go at that.
Being somebody's stooge doesn't exempt you from being comfortably wealthy or an independent business owner.
You're right, though. I did leave out the possibility that you have a job of which you're ashamed.
Thank you for your concern and warning about BambiB. It's truly a shame that he has so many hangups. Sometimes he puts thought into his opinions and then destroys his credibility with his woman hating antics. As I wrote to the webmaster of this site. they truly need an editor not just here but on all sites that deal in politics, economics and religion.
Fred Speckmann
If you can't ebgage in civilized debate then you should find the rest of the trolls and you can exchange all the insults you want. It's interesting that people who engage in insults seldom if ever use their real names as a signature.
Good bye and good luck on your inability to convince anyone of your woman hating preferences. too bad, if you tried to discuss subjects in a civilized manner you would perhaps persuade someone.
Fred
Coulter is a bomb-thrower. Always has been, always will be as long as she has a book out there. Her issues aren't the same as Palin's.
Michele Bachmann is another woman who doesn't have issues with men. Erase Coulter and stick her in my comparison, instead.
The topic of *my* comment wasn't *your* misogyny, but Palin's issues.
And in case you can't figure it out, Coulter is not being sarcastic when she says women should not vote. She's stating an opinion. You might get away with mischaracterizing a single statement, but you'd have to be an idiot to think this was all sarcasm. She means what she says. She cites the REASONS for what she says. The reasons are not hyperbolic, they're rational. The Country would be better off if women could not vote.
" ... women have no capacity to understand how money is earned. They have a lot of ideas on how to spend it ... it's always more money on education, more money on child care, more money on day care."
==> "It would be a much better country if women did not vote. That is simply a fact. In fact, in every presidential election since 1950 — except Goldwater in '64 — the Republican would have won, if only the men had voted."
==> "If we took away women's right to vote, we'd never have to worry about another Democrat president. It's kind of a pipe dream, it's a personal fantasy of mine, but I don't think it's going to happen. And it is a good way of making the point that women are voting so stupidly, at least single women."
Load more comments...